In the Technique book it very clearly says in three places in as many pages that from a stationary position the weight must be brought forward over the balls of the feet. Absolutely nothing is mentioned about getting the body ahead of the feet. Once we start walking thats it. The foot, it is calculated travels twice the speed of the body. As s soon as from a stationary position the weight moves over the ball of the foot the foot is off travelling twice the speed of the body. If you walk the way you discribe down the aisle in your local super market you would soon be followed by the Security. Close your eyes, or anybody close your eyes. Imagine walking with your body going ahead of your feet. If you are doing a Rumba Walk very definitely the foot freezes on beat two which is step one and the body continues to go to the point of imbalance and then is caught by the next step, by a foot that is travelling twice the speed of the body. If it didn't we would finish flat on our face. But we are not doing Latin here. This is Standard. When you say. EVENTUALLY the foot MAY overtake the body by some amount. That is to stupid for words. Who flogged this information to you. It must have been a Dr.Good and his Travelling Medicine Show. Who then ran off laughing all the way to the bank. When comencing a walk from a closed position the weight must always be brought forward over the Balls of the feet. That's right, we do it every day. But where did you get the idea that this happens at the end of the step onto the next step and from there on. Give me a discription from any technique book or DVD. Excluding DR. Good's. Also keep those feet in contact with the floor.

Subject:

Message:

Re: How it has changed

Posted by Anonymous

3/28/2007 5:29:00 PM

"In the Technique book it very clearly says in three places in as many pages that from a stationary position the weight must be brought forward over the balls of the feet. Absolutely nothing is mentioned about getting the body ahead of the feet."

Nothing is mentioned about not doing it either. Yet if you analyze how humans walk it is OBVIOUS THAT IT HAPPENS.

But before we get too distracted, the important thing is that the body weight project beyond the standing foot, INTO IMBALANCE. Usually the moving foot would take a while before it got ahead of the body, but as it's not supporting the body anyway, its position is less critical (unless of course it collides with the partner, as it rather easily can).

"If you walk the way you discribe down the aisle in your local super market you would soon be followed by the Security."

Who would be walking EXACTLY THE SAME WAY THEMSELVES. That is just the way HUMANS MOVE.

You really are going to have to read some of the literature on the subject of human locomotion... or continue in your idiotic denial.

Subject:

Message:

Re: How it has changed

Posted by Anonymous

3/28/2007 5:45:00 PM

To everyone who still believes we are balanced when we walk:

Look up the concept of the "zero moment point" or ZMP.

The constraint for walking is usually that the ZMP is within the footprint of the standing foot. It is NOT that the CENTER OF MASS is within the standing foortprint - in fact, it usually isn't.

We are not balanced when we walk, however, the net forces and desired accelerations do balance out - if they didn't we would move in an undesired direction, which of course is something neither healthy adults walking, nor skilled dancers dancing would tolerate. But both are OFF BALANCe more of the time than theya re on balance.

Subject:

Message:

Re: How it has changed

Posted by Quickstep

3/28/2007 9:21:00 PM

You are still not keeping you moving foot in contact with the floor are you. You are still walking in which we do lift our foot from the floor. With the foot off the floor you are on one leg literally on one leg and moving. We do not dance that way either going forward or backward.

Subject:

Message:

Re: How it has changed

Posted by Anonymous

3/28/2007 9:44:00 PM

"You are still not keeping you moving foot in contact with the floor are you."

On the contrary, I am.

The difference is that unlike you, I am aware that it usually doesn't make much difference. I can do pretty much the same thing when lifting up street shoes slightly to clear a bad dance surface.

"With the foot off the floor you are on one leg literally on one leg and moving. We do not dance that way either going forward or backward."

What you fail to understand is that WHEN YOU DANCE, YOU ARE ALSO ON ONLY ONE LEG AT A TIME. Even if we momentarily accept your mistaken argument about mid-stride, that dual support phase would only be a tiny fraction of the time. At any point when one foot is moving, you are obviously standing ONLY ON THE STATIONARY FOOT.

Subject:

Message:

Re: How it has changed

Posted by Quickstep.

3/29/2007 3:19:00 AM

look at the other posting. Dancing and Walking.

Subject:

Message:

Re: How it has changed

Posted by Quickstep

3/29/2007 5:16:00 AM

To finaly get the last piece of evidence it is neccassary to find out what your belief is concerning a Backward Walk. According to you does either of the feet leave the floor. Yes or no.

Subject:

Message:

Re: How it has changed

Posted by Anonymous

3/29/2007 6:33:00 AM

"To finaly get the last piece of evidence it is neccassary to find out what your belief is concerning a Backward Walk. According to you does either of the feet leave the floor. Yes or no."

You have to learn to start asking the important questions and stop asking the unimportant ones.

Your infantile obsession with the altitude of the moving foot only proves that you have not yet begun to actually understand the primary role of the standing leg!

Subject:

Message:

Re: How it has changed

Posted by Quickstep.

3/29/2007 4:25:00 PM

So you are one of those whos feet leaves the floor, going backward or forward. This will account for your belief that we are moving from imbalance to imbalance, so imbalance means not being balanced. By the way you write it would seem you are using momentum to keep you upright. I think we can exclude a Waltz from this argument unless you think that the Waltz is also an imbalaced thing. I doubt that you think it is. The Tango is also a none runner. The V. Waltz has its problems where flighting the body without it it wouldn' t move. It does rely on speed. So we have the Foxtrot. If you lift your feet from the floor, that is one at a time. Your feet will start to move to quickly. You will be racing through the music. If both you and your partner are off the floor both at the same time you are falling onto your step. Use any type of model you like the result will be the same. Drop that scientific clap trap. Ballroom Dancing is an art and not a science. To recap Ballroom Dancing is an art. If you have no contact with the floor with your moving foot your foot will move too quickly. Your timing will suffer and you will most likely be off the beat producing a muddy looking Foxtrot. I've tried to pin you down on this one without success. Do you believe that the person moving backwards has pressure on both feet as they move. Are both feet in contact with the floor. Or are they also imbalanced falling from foot to foot with the body moving ahead of the feet. When its put like that it does sound ridicules, doesn't it. Also please explain what you meant when you wrote. The mistaken argument of mid stride. Which has everything to do with foot pressure.

Subject:

Message:

Re: How it has changed

Posted by Anonymous

3/30/2007 6:46:00 AM

"So you are one of those whos feet leaves the floor, going backward or forward."

No! I did not say that at all.

Apparently you studied at the George Bush school of diplomacy.

I don't share your obsession with the altitude of the moving foot, but absent any reason to raise it (and there usually is none) I would not recommend doing so. On the other hand, if there is a reason to raise it (such as unsuitable shoes and/or floor) I can do so with no real disruption.

"By the way you write it would seem you are using momentum to keep you upright."

Yes, that is how humans have been walking every since our ancestors left the trees. You can deny it until you are blue in the face, but you will not change SIMPLE FACTS KNOWN TO ANYONE WHO HAS MADE A SCIENTIFIC STUDY OF HUMAN MOVEMENT.

"If you have no contact with the floor with your moving foot your foot will move too quickly."

On the contrary, if it is only contact with the floor that keeps your moving foot from moving too quickly then THERE IS SOMETHING SERIOUSLY WRONG WITH YOUR MOVEMENT. If your movement were well aimed and efficient, there would be no need for a braking drag from that foot - that you need it is proof that your movement is MISAIMED and INEFFICIENT. Now that's fine for a beginner, but you sure give the impression that you've been dancing long enough to have moved years beyond that stage!

"I've tried to pin you down on this one without success. Do you believe that the person moving backwards has pressure on both feet as they move."

Of course not!

"Are both feet in contact with the floor."

Yes, unless there is a good reason for one not to be. Unecessarily lifting a foot is wasteful - but if it becomes necessary due to a bad floor/shoe situation, it would not change anything on a skilled and coordinated dancer.

"Also please explain what you meant when you wrote. The mistaken argument of mid stride. Which has everything to do with foot pressure."

You would not be able to get to your alleged mid-stride position (which is a mistake), or mine either (which is proper) without either

1) going of balance (the proper way

or

2) sliding a lot of your weight on the moving foot in order to stay balanced (the improper way, very limiting, and will cause you to trip if someone changes the floor wax)

or

3) stopping your body over your standing foot until after your moving foot has been placed. Talk about silly walks!!